RAM PRAKASH Vs. DELHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Accounts Branch of Respondent no. 2 college on 17. 02. 2003 for four months on contractual basis on a consolidated pay of Rs. 7000/- per month. This term of four months for which he was initially appointed was extended for another six months vide respondent no. 2's letter dated 04. 07. 2003. Thereafter, he was given ad hoc appointment to the post of Junior Assistant in respondent no. 2 college for a period of 89 days at a basic pay of Rs. 3050/- per month plus usual allowances as admissible under the Rules vide letter of respondent no. 2 college dated 19. 11. 2003. The ad hoc appointment so given to the petitioner was extended from time to time by various orders passed by respondent no. 2 college till almost the end of year 2006. The extension for ad hoc appointment was given from time to time, each time for 89 days, after break of 1-3 days at the time of each such extension. The governing body of respondent no. 2 college in its meeting held on 04. 12. 2006 resolved to regularize the services of the petitioner in respondent no. 2 college on the post of Junior Assistant w. e. f. 01. 01. 2007 subject to the approval of the University of Delhi/university Grants Commission and accordingly, the petitioner was informed about the decision of the governing body by the Principal of respondent no. 2 college vide letter dated 05. 12. 2006 (Annexure P-17 at page 41 of the Paper Book ). Since the respondent no. 2 college did not get approval to the decision of the governing body for regularizing the petitioner in the service of respondent no. 2 college, the petitioner was again appointed on ad hoc basis in the Accounts Branch of respondent no. 2 college for a period of 89 days w. e. f. 02. 04. 2007 to 29. 06. 2007 or till the post is filled on a permanent basis at a basic pay of Rs. 3050/- per month plus usual allowances as admissible under the Rules vide letter dated 29. 03. 2007 of respondent no. 2 college (Annexure P-1 at page 24 of the Paper book ). The petitioner is aggrieved by his said ad hoc appointment vide the above referred letter dated 29. 03. 2007 and has, therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29. 03. 2007 with consequential benefits.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner is that since his services on the post of junior Assistant in respondent no. 2 college have been regularized by the governing body of respondent no. 2 college w. e. f. 01. 01. 2007, the impugned order dated 29. 03. 2007 appointing him on ad hoc basis for 89 days is in contradiction with the decision of the governing body. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 24. 07. 2007 and during the pendency of the present writ petition, the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was extended by respondent no. 2 college up to 29. 09. 2007. Thereafter, he was not granted any further extension and consequent thereto, he is now no more in service of respondent no. 2 college. The petitioner had filed a miscellaneous application, being CM No. 1668/2008 for directions to respondent no. 2 college that he should be allowed to resume his duties in the college but his said application was dismissed on merits vide order passed by this court on 04. 02. 2008.

(3.) AT the hearing of this writ petition, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that since the governing body of respondent no. 2 college in its meeting held on 04. 12. 2006, had resolved to regularize the services of the petitioner w. e. f. 01. 01. 2007, the petitioner should be deemed to have continued in the service of respondent no. 2 college and according to the learned counsel, there was no need for the respondent to have passed the impugned order dated 29. 03. 2007 appointing the petitioner on ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days w. e. f. 02. 04. 2007 to 29. 06. 2007. Mr. Joshi had further argued that in terms of Ordinance XX of the University of Delhi, the governing body of respondent no. 2 college had full power to make the appointment of the administrative staff in the college and in support of his said argument, he has relied upon the extract of Ordinance XX annexed as annexure P-19 at page 43 of the Paper Book. Mr. Joshi had submitted that since the petitioner is unemployed, necessary directions be given by this court to the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume his duties as Junior Assistant in respondent no. 2 college immediately as according to him, he is deemed to have continued in the service of the college in view of the decision of the governing body communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 05. 12. 2006 (Annexure P-17 at page 41 of the Paper Book ).